musemaj11 Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 We hear all the time that many if not most men (not all) generally would wait for sex until one or two months before considering it not worth it and look for other more sexually compatible women. And just like men, most women wouldnt want to wait until marriage for sex either. But generally women are more willing to wait longer than men (Im aware however that a few women are just as sexually impatient as men). So suppose that you were thrown into a situation in which for whatever reason the man is wanting to take it slow, how long would you wait before considering it not worth the wait? Three months? Six months? A year? Three years?
Citizen Erased Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 It would depend on the person really. A month or two, I'd be too sexually frustrated to wait it out TBH. I know it's not entirely rational, but I'd count it as being rejected and I doubt I'd handle that very well.
Author musemaj11 Posted August 3, 2011 Author Posted August 3, 2011 I know it's not entirely rational, but I'd count it as being rejected and I doubt I'd handle that very well. I dont understand women who cite such irrational fear. A guy won't keep dating you if he is not interested in you physically. Unlike men, women are very unlikely to face men who hang around despite not really being attracted. I mean whats the incentive? Its not like a guy can use a woman for free dates and free dinners without it being obvious.
shadowofman Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 Well if the guy IS interested in her physically, why would he not want to have sex? I think the irrational fear cruxes on this line of thought. It's sort of a given that men WILL as soon as they get the chance, and if they don't, then they must not find the woman attractive enough to. Personally, I'd have sex before the first date even begins if I have the chance.
Citizen Erased Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 Well if the guy IS interested in her physically, why would he not want to have sex? I think the irrational fear cruxes on this line of thought. It's sort of a given that men WILL as soon as they get the chance, and if they don't, then they must not find the woman attractive enough to. Personally, I'd have sex before the first date even begins if I have the chance. Exactly.
Fondue Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 I dont understand women who cite such irrational fear. A guy won't keep dating you if he is not interested in you physically. Unlike men, women are very unlikely to face men who hang around despite not really being attracted. I mean whats the incentive? Its not like a guy can use a woman for free dates and free dinners without it being obvious. I never understood this, too. The guy is a jerk for either: - Wanting sex too soon. - Or not wanting sex soon enough. You can't win.
Citizen Erased Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 I never understood this, too. The guy is a jerk for either: - Wanting sex too soon. - Or not wanting sex soon enough. You can't win. I don't think any guy is a jerk for wanting sex straight away. I think that's normal actually, if two people are attracted to each other.
rafallus Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 The guy is a jerk for either: - Wanting sex too soon. He's only a jerk, if he can't make a woman want sex just as much.
Author musemaj11 Posted August 3, 2011 Author Posted August 3, 2011 I don't think any guy is a jerk for wanting sex straight away. I think that's normal actually, if two people are attracted to each other. Okay then let's suppose that a guy is undoubtedly attracted to u and the reason he is taking it slow is sexual hangup originating from upbringing or whatever. In such a case how long would u wait for him before u would think its too much time to go without sex and its not worth it?
ThsAmericanLife Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 At a minimum, long enough for both people to decide they want to be in an exclusive relationship with the other person. Unless you live right down the street and don't have a pile of other obligations (which you should, if you have a life)... that takes a minimum of a month. Two or maybe even three months would be ideal. I probably could wait quite a long time... maybe as long as marriage, but I'd need to find out if we were sexually compatible in other ways. If a guy is pushing me for sex or even long make out sessions before knowing me for at least a month, I'm not interested in a long-term relationship with them. Especially when I tell them I prefer to wait. I'm tired of always being the one to set the pace. I've been guilty of taking a few of them on though, then dumping them shortly afterwards. Not trying to out of revenge. It just happens that way because there is no real intimacy and men who push for sex early in the relationship come across as shallow and brainless. Like all they have to offer are their parts... which, at my age (46), aren't much to write home about. If you are a guy and worried about giving out lots of $$ on dates who aren't interested in you, then find a woman who believes in going dutch. I rarely let a man pay the full amount unless he insists.
Pierre Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 It would depend on the person really. A month or two, I'd be too sexually frustrated to wait it out TBH. I know it's not entirely rational, but I'd count it as being rejected and I doubt I'd handle that very well. Many women have sex too soon because they are insecure. Your words echo that very clearly. Some men can pick up these vibes and take advantage.
Pierre Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 At a minimum, long enough for both people to decide they want to be in an exclusive relationship with the other person. Unless you live right down the street and don't have a pile of other obligations (which you should, if you have a life)... that takes a minimum of a month. Two or maybe even three months would be ideal. I probably could wait quite a long time... maybe as long as marriage, but I'd need to find out if we were sexually compatible in other ways. If a guy is pushing me for sex or even long make out sessions before knowing me for at least a month, I'm not interested in a long-term relationship with them. Especially when I tell them I prefer to wait. I'm tired of always being the one to set the pace. I've been guilty of taking a few of them on though, then dumping them shortly afterwards. Not trying to out of revenge. It just happens that way because there is no real intimacy and men who push for sex early in the relationship come across as shallow and brainless. Like all they have to offer are their parts... which, at my age (46), aren't much to write home about. If you are a guy and worried about giving out lots of $$ on dates who aren't interested in you, then find a woman who believes in going dutch. I rarely let a man pay the full amount unless he insists. Excellent post!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:
zengirl Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 Well, it would depend on why. The guy I lived with and dated for a couple of years in my early twenties, we waited about three months to have sex because he wanted to. He doesn't have sex until he's sure he's in love, has said ILY, all that stuff. He was upfront with me about that, and I respected his POV on it a lot. For me, it's harder to know 100% I've fallen in love without having sex. . . so I couldn't imagine following that rule for myself, really, but I definitely respected his. If he'd been all weird and not TOLD me why we weren't having sex, I'd wonder WTF was going on. But I think that's true if a girl is holding out through 3 months of dating* as well. (*Dating styles matter a lot too. It seems like some people on here will date someone and see them once a week or something and have it be very casual and stretched out over time. I don't really have that experience. Every guy I've ever gotten into a relationship with, we started seeing each other 3+ times a week usually by about the 3rd date. . . so to me, three months of dating is usually "I've been spending half my time these 3 months with this person" and it's always been exclusive, committed, and starting to get intense by then.) I wouldn't be okay dating someone who wanted to wait until marriage because I could never marry someone without knowing sexual compatibility. I'd be okay waiting for a few months, as I did before, but only if I knew why we were waiting and we were able to communicate about sex and such. I think you should at least start TALKING about the sexual component of the relationship after the first month, assuming you're serious about the person. That said, if you talk about sex on the first few dates, I might assume you're a jerk (it really depends on what you say, but most guys know better than to bring it up at all). But if you aren't expressing any kind of sexual desire for me --- doesn't mean we have to have sex perse --- by the end of month one, I'd really wonder what the deal was.
Kamille Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 It would depend on the relationship. I personally like the build up of anticipation. After the three month mark, however, the guy would need to have stellar resolve, because I would make it a game to get him hot and bothered. But I have yet to meet a guy who wants to wait longer than a month and a sense of exclusivity to have sex.
Pierre Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 It would depend on the relationship. I personally like the build up of anticipation. After the three month mark, however, the guy would need to have stellar resolve, because I would make it a game to get him hot and bothered. But I have yet to meet a guy who wants to wait longer than a month and a sense of exclusivity to have sex. I like exclusivity with the sex. I am not interested in having sex with a woman that is sleeping with other men. I also want to make sure she is ready to jump my bones. I do not force the sex issue while looking at the calendar or my wrist watch.
iris219 Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 I would wait if a guy was waiting for marriage, especially if we knew within several months we wanted to be married. If we were engaged within 6 months and then married in the next 6 months, I'd have no problem with it. If he wanted to wait just wait, I'd be confused. I'd have to understand his reasons. If he isn't religious, isn't waiting for marriage, and doesn't have to be in love to have sex, I'd be suspicious. I start to wonder why a man in his 30s doesn't want sex. I don't believe in sexual incompatibility with someone I'm in love with, btw. I think sex can be better with some people vs. others, but if I love someone I can make it work (unless they're so weird in the bedroom they would be incompatible with 99% of women). I don't need to have the best sex of my life with each person I'm with to love them and enjoy sex with them.
zengirl Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 I don't believe in sexual incompatibility with someone I'm in love with, btw. I think sex can be better with some people vs. others, but if I love someone I can make it work (unless they're so weird in the bedroom they would be incompatible with 99% of women). I don't either, but I don't think I've ever actually been in love with a guy before sex (well, my HS sweetheart, because we never slept together and were waiting for marriage and then he died, but that love doesn't feel . . . as real to me now; it feels like I was another person, and "love" was a much different thing then). Not that sex = love, but I definitely feel like it equals deepening intimacy. But I'll never do "anything but" stuff personally. I'm sure you could find out compatibility and intimacy in different ways. I'll occasionally sleep in the same bed, but only very chastely pre-sex. For me, it's kind of a very firm line. If I even get into "heavy petting," it's sex time.
FitChick Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 It also depends on his age. Men over 40 have lower testosterone so become impotent. They will never admit it, however. Silly.
sally4sara Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 How long I'd wait would depend on a few things like how admirable I found the guy in other ways, how happy I was in the relationship outside of his celibacy and if he expected me to be celibate until he was ready/we were married.
Ruby Slippers Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 Probably a month or two tops. Any longer than that, and we're probably not compatible in terms of sex drive, anyway. I've only been with one guy who wanted to move slowly, and he turned out to have major sexual issues, and this was the biggest problem in our relationship.
Audrina Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 We hear all the time that many if not most men (not all) generally would wait for sex until one or two months before considering it not worth it and look for other more sexually compatible women. And just like men, most women wouldnt want to wait until marriage for sex either. But generally women are more willing to wait longer than men (Im aware however that a few women are just as sexually impatient as men). So suppose that you were thrown into a situation in which for whatever reason the man is wanting to take it slow, how long would you wait before considering it not worth the wait? Three months? Six months? A year? Three years? For me sexual compatibility is HUGELY important. I am a sexual person and I enjoy having sex with my partner. While I understand wanting to wait, I'll only wait a reasonable amount of time and it won't be more than six months. After six months you are already becoming very emotionally invested in the partner, and quite frankly, if I wasn't sexually compatible with this person I would have to end the relationship, and that would lead to heartbreak on both our parts. I'm very choosy with my partners so when it comes time to bring our relationship to the sexual level, I'm not really one to want to wait, and I probably wouldn't be compatible with someone who was. On the other hand, I have a very good friend who always waits until she's in love with the person before she has sex with them, this is her choice. I know many men who wouldn't be willing to wait for those emotions to develop, but I know some who would as well. Different strokes for different folks.
sm1tten Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 It would depend on how much I liked/loved the guy, what his reasons were and if I respected them, and how satisfied I was in the relationship. That's the technical answer. The short answer is - probably not very long. I'm not going to drag out that process to make him feel better, nor would I want him to rush into somethign to make me feel better. When we are on the same page is when it happens. There's really no calender time frame for how long that would take.
OliveOyl Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 It also depends on his age. Men over 40 have lower testosterone so become impotent. They will never admit it, however. Silly. Uh, I don't think this is true as a "hard and fast" rule. (yes, pun intended ) I wouldn't wait past about a month. After that, especially at my age it would just be silly. More than the lack of sex specifically, it would concern me that he was imposing an arbitrary rule. I'd worry that he was uptight in general. And frankly, it's emasculating.
Author musemaj11 Posted August 3, 2011 Author Posted August 3, 2011 Its funny how a lot of women are much more judgmental toward guys who want to wait than the other way around.
phineas Posted August 4, 2011 Posted August 4, 2011 It also depends on his age. Men over 40 have lower testosterone so become impotent. They will never admit it, however. Silly. 39 1/2. Come on over, in a trench coat & nothing else. Since i'm impotent you won't have anything to worry about for the next hr.
Recommended Posts